Environmental or Conventional Dentistry

Conventional dental and dentists’ practice help many people enjoy excellent dental and oral function for years. Conventional dentistry’s stature throws dentists practicing alternative dentistry methods into obscurity. Lina Garcia, DMD, a so-called environmental dentist clears up several issues regarding the untraditional means that they practice. She also exposes several ways how conventional dentistry procedures harm patients and the environment.

Environmental dentistry does not differ widely from conventional practices. But they do uphold a principle: the mouth as an integrated member of a person’s body and must be treated using this perspective. The primary objective of environmental dental and dentists’ practice is to treat dental and oral problems without causing harm and adverse effects on the body. Environmental dentists claim that conventional dental procedures often use methods that are harmful to the body over time. Environmental dentistry’s recent findings indicate that some of the most basic services of conventional dentists are hazardous for the patients and their environment. Garcia identifies these problems as the common and basic services patients often ask from their dentists. Amalgam fillings, root canals, cavitations, implants, surgery, and the use of stainless steel in the oral cavity are cited in a report by Garcia. According to her, amalgam fillings are still 50% mercury which make them dangerous and toxic when ingested. Root canals also cause more mouth problems because they encourage the growth of bacteria; it is also the same with cavitations. Environmental dentistry also abhors the use of implants without bio-compatibility testing. They claim that it aggravates the immuno-defense system and often start allergies and negative reactions. They also cite the results of studies that indicate that use of stainless steel in any open body part is a cause of cancer.

The critiques from environmental dentistry are many but the conventional dentistry explains these as nuisance. Conventional dentists assert that the mercury in amalgam filling is converted to a non-toxic substance once it reacts with the oral fluids and bacteria. They also cite lack of evidence and proof to support the environmental practice’s claim on the relation of dental care to other major diseases like heart disease and cancer. Conventional dental and dentists’ service providers encourage patients to consult only dentists who advocate scientific treatment. What they termed “holistic” practices such as environmental dentistry, are often unsafe and poses serious health risks.

Both camps have their cards on the table. I think that it is up to you, as patients to decide in which practice you feel comfortable with: a “holistic” environmental practice or scientific and clinical dentistry? I strongly advise research and making informed choices when it comes to health matters.